The purpose of this Status Memorandum is to report to
the Court on recent developments in the above-entitled case, and to outline the
parties' proposals for further proceedings. Because this is a Joint
Memorandum, some topics on which the parties may disagree are not dealt with
here in any detail.

-1-

2. STATUS OF RE-TESTING OF THE EVIDENCE AND RELATED MATTERS

Thanks to arrangements made by the Office of the
Prosecuting Attorney, the West Memphis Police Department, and the Arkansas
Crime Laboratory, over the past year the parties have spent a number of hours
reviewing virtually every item of evidence acquired in the course of the
investigation of the above-described cases. Criminalists from the
Arkansas State Crime Laboratory, and criminalists retained by the defense,
participated in at least some of the evidence review process. In addition
to looking at evidence at the West Memphis Police Department and Arkansas State
Crime Laboratory, the parties also reviewed files and records in the care and
custody of the Arkansas Supreme Court in an attempt to locate all of the
pertinent evidence.

After the review of the evidence took place, and over
a number of months, the parties negotiated to achieve agreement on at least
some potentially dispositive testing and/or re-testing of evidence. The
negotiations were lengthy in part because the parties were seeking to avoid
litigation of post-conviction testing issues where possible. This process
resulted in the drafting of a written agreement, reviewed by all counsel
involved in these cases, which sets forth two lists of numerous items that will
be subject to independent laboratory testing for the presence of DNA.

-2-

Through this Status Memorandum, the parties also
inform the Court that there have been certain areas on which the parties have
agreed to disagree. These areas include, but are not limited to: defense
requests for examination and testing (or re-testing) of fiber evidence; defense
requests for examination of hair evidence; DNA analysis of items that were not
included in the agreed upon lists. However, the parties have agreed that
because the results of the initial DNA testing may provide some dispositive
evidence, results of those tests should be obtained prior to the scheduling of
any litigation pertinent to further post-conviction evidence testing.

3. STATUS OF BALDWIN AND MISSKELLEY CASES

Timely filed Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule
37 petitioners are pending before the Court in the Baldwin and Misskelley
cases. The pertinent parties have discussed the further litigation of
these two cases, and propose that after the conclusion of the agreed-upon DNA
testing and any further necessary litigation, Baldwin and Misskelley will
submit amended petitions.

4. TIME ESTIMATE FOR THE COMPLETION OF AGREED-UPON TESTING.

Once the evidence is actually in the hands of the
agreed-upon laboratory, and the preparation of samples and materials is
complete, it is estimated that it will take between 60 and 90 days for the
parties to receive results. The accuracy of this time estimate is in

-3-

part contingent on the work schedules of the agreed upon laboratories. As
contemplated by the agreement between the parties and related Order tendered to
the Court, there may be a second round of testing for a limited number of
samples prior to the completion of the testing procedures. This second
round of testing could, factoring in the time for transmission of the samples,
and the further testing procedures, add an additional 90 to 120 days to the
process.

The time periods contemplated are contingent on the
testing schedules set by the agreed-upon laboratories.CONCLUSION

Should the Court wish to meet with the parties, hold a telephonic status
conference, or obtain further written information about the case, the parties
will make themselves available as directed by the Court. This Joint
Status Memorandum is